December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Stinger Specs
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Stinger (AIM-92) (Jane's #: 6604.331) 152 x 7-14 cm (l x d - span) Weight: 18 kg Warhead: HE Propulsion: Solid Range: 2-4 km Guidance: IR Exact effective range / altitude is not listed in the quick guide I have on my desk. I will pull it out of a larger volume when I have time. -- I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist unicorn(a)schloss.li

1 0

Insider Trading - news report
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'd be curious as to the comments of Black Unicorn and others on that legal finding - it does appear to make things at least a bit better in this area... including making it difficult to claim that insider information shouldn't be transmitted on the Net. Incidentally, I find AP's calling insider trading "fraud" rather biased. -Allen > _________________________________________________________________ > Direct Media > _________________________________________________________________ > INSIDER TRADING NEVER WENT AWAY > __________________________________________________________________________ > Copyright &copy 1996 Nando.net > Copyright &copy 1996 The Associated Press > WASHINGTON (Sep 18, 1996 10:35 a.m. EDT) -- One of the most infamous > acts in the financial fraudster's playbook, insider trading, remains > at record levels, despite a decade of steady crackdowns by regulators. [...] > The SEC brought one of its more unusual insider trading cases on > Monday, when it sued the unnamed account holders in a Swiss and > Bahamian accounts with insider trading ahead of The Gillette Co.'s > merger proposal for Duracell International. [...] > One disturbing development for regulators is a recent decision by the > 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that struck down one of the SEC's > main enforcement tools in insider trading cases. > The court, which covers several Midwestern states, rejected the > so-called "misappropriation theory" in insider trading cases, which is > used to nab people trading on inside information who don't owe a > fiduciary duty to the company's shareholders. The court also rejected > an SEC rule used to snare insider trading in tender offers. > The 8th Circuit decision came in August in a Justice Department case > against Minneapolis attorney James H. O'Hagan, who was charged with > insider trading during the 1988 takeover bid of Pillsbury Co. by Grand > Metropolitan PLC. SEC General Counsel Richard Walker has asked the > appeals court for a rehearing on the matter. > While the 8th Circuit decision represents a setback for the SEC, the > agency usually brings its cases in the New York and Chicago areas, > where the federal courts acknowledge these insider trading rules. > Regulators say these enforcement tools are important because insider > trading follows few patterns. In an analysis of 35 cases brought in > 1995 that solely dealt with insider trading, Gerlach said 20 involved > trading ahead of mergers, three ahead of other positive corporate > announcements and six ahead of bad corporate news. > He described 16 of the cases as "classic insider trading" involving an > executive, company director or employee who traded on confidential, > market sensitive information or tipped friends about it. Among the > remaining cases, four involved trading by securities brokers or other > industry officials, four involved law firm employees and one, an > employee at an outside accounting firm. > Investigators at the Nasdaq Stock Market's market surveillance unit > refer a significant number of insider trading cases to the SEC. Halley > Milligan, who heads a team of nine insider trading investigators at > Nasdaq, said the market has made 73 referrals on suspected insider > trading to the SEC so far in 1996, which is on par with last year, > when 107 cases were referred to the agency. > Nasdaq, like major stock markets, uses sophisticated computer > technology to sniff out illegal trading. The Nasdaq system is called > SWAT, or Stock Watch Automatic Tracking, which scans news databases > after detecting any unusual trading. [...] > Copyright &copy 1996 Nando.net

2 1

unsubscribe
by flatline＠direct.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

unsubscribe

1 0

No Subject
by attila 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dimitri; your taste is limitless, your tongue in every sewer. must we suffer the depths of your insane depravity? should we drop a dime on you? you're a disgace to humanity. must we scan even body text to get rid of you? I doubt Tim cares about the lunatic ravings of someone as mad as the mad N's "ice weasals," but your childish profaning of humanity seems to have no bounds. I am flat against censorship, but I think this warrants excluding Dimitri from the list. block his posts and block his subscription. these personal attacks have nothing to do with your general rights; collectively, we are permitted to screen against a banal display of ignorance. On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > Shamster: SHA-enabled biocomputing hamster. > > I'm sure Timmy would like to wrap one up in duct tape and shove it > up his ass... >

1 0

No Subject
by barina man 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

unscribe

1 0

Re: Bernstein hearing reminder: [..]
by barrk＠alias.cyberpass.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Part 1 The Batman part On Sep 19, 9:24am, Batman wrote: > Subject: RE: Bernstein hearing reminder: THIS Friday 11:45AM, SF Federal B >For the 200th time, unsubscrive me of your fucked mail lists. > >-- End of excerpt from Batman Part 2 James wrote: >Apologies if you receive more than one copy of this message, but >I'm auto-replying to your message to handle the flood: I had only one copy, James, but it was good. >Redistribution to the list from which you originally received >the problem message is kindly requested. Which list was that, James? >Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. The email >or posting you have seen falsely represents Smith Barney and its >employees. These are erroneous postings that did not originate >from anyone employed by our firm, and therefore we cannot >directly stop them from occurring. However we have advised the >companies we believe to have serviced the originator of these >messages and we are pursuing all possible steps to end this >fraud. Unfortunately some people abuse the Internet and we >regret any inconvenience they may have caused you. Thats good, James. As the FBI man said: I smelled a rat and I nipped it in the bud. >There are currently no mailing lists maintained in the smb.com >domain, so you were not subscribed to any list. If you receive >any further messages of this nature, they are the product of the >same spurious source. Thats the word. Spuvious. >We're sorry for any inconvenience you may have experienced as a >result of this unfortunate abuse of the 'Net. No inconvenience, James. No inconvenience, at all. >Further queries via email to postmaster(a)smb.com please. Direct your replies to: cypherpunks-announce(a)toad.com This list is a must for all people in the Arctic, the plains of Mongolia and the North West territories, who want to be kept "ajour" of the dressinghabits of the natives in California. Barry

2 1

Re: WinSock Remailer Version ALPHA 1.3 Now Available
by Remo Pini 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Thu Sep 19 09:07:16 1996 Has it already been exported by some sinister anonymous? If so, where? - ------< fate favors the prepared mind >------ Remo Pini rp(a)rpini.com PGP: http://www.rpini.com/crypto/crypto.html - ----< words are what reality is made of >---- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMkDxJRFhy5sz+bTpAQGnGAf9GgDkjFpjbHewBBAQlGBiZvVeRM+Co8zx sP8eQN3FJbvwVQdIblxy3Tc4k0/q4+8KA/GCYpEsN4h9+71CgPWHeMGla0egKf4L eGcYGlBKNPA+EmJnX7YETqMAFOblejgxgxWwnPOZLMiOqiBhTGpqIq1xEJugXm6v m85qDTSomlhygKnexWVv9jVM6ntyx2x0WBCwR/L+B9NrFcoBv5GTCpiXOoEzOXq2 PhPmxxdD1Q2NF9/FSLGTOJPy9BgIyO7L3MzmKeC5ps3jlmN2Q4U+Icdchd4nnB/a IAzyBWqNCnxmglbdhhq2JoU1HLi+6DsuhaOoE3T5VDar+gPcVD/Apg== =0Iof -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

The Beauty of "A la Carte" Insurance Plans
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:44 PM 9/18/96, jbugden(a)smtplink.alis.ca wrote: >I don't speak for the left, nor for the right. I don't think that there is a >unified voice on either side of the political spectrum. However I do find it >ironic that market driven health insurance has the potential to be more >intrusive into personal life than many government systems (cf. genetic >screening). > >If all you do is replace Big Brother with Big Business, then all that has >changed is the name. To paraphrase the character in "The Graduate": "One phrase, Benjamin...a la carte insurance." I delight in explaining this point to people, and watching the glimmer of understanding take hold, then watching them realize the implications. I recall explaining this view a couple of years ago here on this list, but probably not since then. So, time has come for me to give it another shot. Is there an alternative to a Giant Corporation (tm) essentially performing the role of Big Brother? I submit that there is. Here's what one does. I'll use a concrete example. Suppose that one is not a homosexual, is not engaging in anal intercourse with partners, is not an IV drug user, and is not a hemophiliac. Further, suppose that one is reasonably monogamous (e.g., fewer than several different sex partners a year, and such partners are themselves not in high-risk groups, as defined in the first part of this paragraph). Such a person is in a very low risk group for AIDS. What one does is to *opt out* of any coverage for AIDS-related coverage. One opts out completely, signs a waiver to this effect, and absolves the insurer of any responsibility for AIDS- or ARC-related illnesses. (This is not perfect, is not "fine-grained" enough, compared to an insurer doing exhaustive tests and lifestyle interrogations and then offering some precise rate to be paid. But it has the advantage that the insurer does not get the exhaustive and intrusive lifestyle information, and the rough cut of "opting out" is almost certainly OK for most low-risk persons. Your mileage may vary, in which case you may submit to a detailed lifestyle analysis. Sadly, many laws exist which don't allow insurance companies to ask the questions and do the tests needed to establish the risk of getting AIDS--sort of like not allowing an insurance company to ask if a person is a low-risk philosopher or a high-risk aircraft test pilot!) Ditto for any other disease which one can either make a reasonable estimate of, or can be _tested for_ (tested privately, independently of any insurance company!). Thus, for the various _genetic_-related diseases, one can check independently to see if one is a reasonably likely carrier of such genes, and, if not, can *opt out* of any coverage for those diseases. This process of *opting out* has the beautiful advantage of taking one's self out of the "subsidizers" pool while not materially affecting one's actual risk of being uncovered for some disease or condition. And all without an intrusive physical exam (though an exam may still be asked for, etc.). The parallel is quite close to people opting out of coverage for things they know they are not at risk for, such as hang-gliding accidents, horseback-riding accidents, aircraft test piloting, etc. (Such exemptions are not "enforced" by the insurance company following one around, or mounting a "position escrow" device on one's body, but by the eminently reasonable approach of simply not paying off if the accident was due to a hang-gliding accident, a horseback riding accident, etc. This is how the "non-smoker" discounts in auto insurance work...finding strong evidence that one is actually a smoker (crud in the lungs, cigarette butts all around the house when living alone, etc.) is positive evidence that one lied about being a non-smoker, and the policy is cancelled without payout.) I wish I could say I thought of this strategem of "opting out," but I believe I read about it some years ago in "Reason" or "Liberty." It understandably outrages liberals, who realize that people will arrange private tests for themselves, and will then opt out of a la carte coverage of diseases they reasonably believe are unlikely to affect them. (Nothing is certain, of course, and there is some chance that if one opts of coverage for Lou Gehrig Disease, or MS, or AIDS, that one may still end up with one of these diseases. TANSTAAFL, and most people will jump at the chance to remove themselves from a pool for something they feel they are very unlikely to get.) To relate this to the other examples, if one opts out of SCUBA-diving coverage, because one is not a SCUBA diver, this does not require the insurance company to intrusively investigate one's life. Diving accidents just don't get covered, period. Some have argued that a la carte insurance should be banned, for precisely this reason, that people will always be able to "game against" the rules. (To make this clear, the flip side of someone opting out of coverage for Disease A is that someone else may already know they are very likely to have Disease A or be at strong risk for Disease A. Forcing an insurance company to accept all applicants means this second category can game against the system, getting more out of the system than they expect to put in.) Supporting the "opting out" or "a la carte" approach to insurance allows personal privacy to be maximally preserved. --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Counter "noise" with "signal" (please?)
by Douglas B. Renner 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If a S/N ratio becomes irritating, by all means, don't increase the denominator! In other words, do your part to let undeserving threads die. Certain things can only be dignified with a response, but I imagine that goes without saying. -Doug Renner

1 0

Re: 56 kbps modems
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:41 AM 9/17/96 -0700, Eric Murray <ericm(a)lne.com> wrote: >Crypto/security related: how hard is it to hack a Frame Relay >connection? My impression is that it requires access to >one of the telco's routing computers, which would make it >about equivalent in difficulty to hacking POTS. Frame Relay doesn't get handled by the telco's POTS routing (unlike ISDN) - it's handled by whatever frame relay switch the telco uses. I don't know what Pac Bell uses; AT&T uses Stratacom switches, I think MCI uses Cascade, USWest uses a mixture. Frame switches mostly use Permanent Virtual Circuits, though Switched Virtual Circuits will be coming out in the next year or so. PVCs are pretty tough to hack, because they mostly get provisioned from an administrative interface on the switch rather than in-band. SVCs will offer a bit more risk, since switching is switching. But it's probably pretty tough. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> # You can get PGP software outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto

1 0